"I was the middle-of-the-road voter," Murray said in between bites of a hummus salad at The Mall at Short Hills. "I was the one who could be swayed."

Except, Murray said, all she heard were attack ads from Kean and another candidate she was considering, her 7th District congressman, Mike Ferguson.

"All the negative campaigning really got to me," she said. "I thought the ads were so ridiculous, it made me vote against whoever was running them."

Not convinced? Parks uses quotes from a Seton Hall University political scientist and unnamed pundits, along with a reference to exit polling to give credence to his theory.

"That's a safe Republican district. It never should have been as close as it was," said Joe Marbach, a Seton Hall University political scientist. "Most of the time congressional incumbents seek to marginalize their opponents. Mike Ferguson chose a campaign strategy that ended up giving Linda Stender great name recognition."

And pundits who followed two of the closest races -- the Senate and the 7th District -- say a slew of negative ads ended up backfiring against the candidates who ran them.

What's more, exit polling done by students at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University found significant dissatisfaction with Ferguson. Nearly half of all Stender votes were, in fact, protest votes -- 45 percent of Stender voters said they were voting against Ferguson.

Does any of this prove negative ads ended up backfiring against Kean who lost or Ferguson who won?

And while the poll did not ask a specific question about the "Stender is a spender" slogan, Marbach said there was little question it backfired.

Another article in the Ledger, Exit poll offers clues to Stender's defeat, would tend to discredit the “nasty backlash” theory, at least as it applies to the Ferguson campaign ads. This article quotes the Rutgers University political science professor Jane Junn, who conducted the exit poll:

Slightly more than 80 percent of those voting for Ferguson said they were voting for him, while 55 percent of those voting for Stender said they were voting for her.

The number one reason Democrats gave for going to vote on Tuesday was "party control of congress."

Looked at it another way, Junn said, 45 percent of those voting for Stender were saying they were "voting for anyone but Ferguson," which also reflected the depth to which national issues and Ferguson's alliance with President Bush was playing out at the polls.

The first myth shattered by the students' exit polling was that Republican women would cross party lines to support Stender. It didn't happen, Junn said.

Women who considered themselves independents were split right down the middle, 50-50; it was actually independent men who were somewhat more likely to go for Stender by a margin of 52-48, Junn said.

Linda Stender ran a negative campaign because it was the only way she could have won. She nearly did. Bob Menendez ran a negative campaign and won – “Standing Up” - against Bush, against Iraq, against “privatization” of Social Security, against oil companies – against, against, against.

Kean and Ferguson also ran against. Kean against political corruption and tax increases. Ferguson against a tax and spender who just happened to be a “double-dipping pension padder, too”. Maybe the jingle and slogan worked.

10 Comments:

Candidates like Linda Stender and Paul Aronsohn had tons of money pumped into their campaigns to help Bob Menendez at the top of the ticket which is exactly what Republicans should've done for Kean with Vince Micco, Leigh Ann Bellew, John Guarini and Jose Sandoval. If either Stender or Aronsohn had won, it merely would've been an added bonus.

The Democrats engaged in a strong grassroots campaign effort that Republicans in New Jersey have long forgotten how to do. If you are a Republican in New Jersey and you are not self funded you are nobody and that's why we have hit rockbottom.

Tom Wilson is an excellent Chairman and he needs new management to help him revive the Republican Party in New Jersey.

When Republicans run a candidate with the last name Kean in New Jersey in a statewide race against a criminal and STILL can't win, something is horribly, HORRIBLY wrong!

Dino said: "Tom Wilson is an excellent Chairman and he needs new management to help him revive the Republican Party in New Jersey."

Pardon me for saying so, but has Tom managed to win anything, or improve the party's position statewide? He seems like a nice enough guy, but from my point of view he was nearly silent through the last few weeks leading up to the election. I was getting multiple daily emails from the national party, but nothing from the state party since September 28th! It's like they abandoned the field at the end of the third quarter.

I called Kean HQ to ask for a lawn sign 2 times and was met with unprofessionalism and a general lack of enthusiasm but they took my name and address to mail me a sign. The 3rd time I called, I was simply given my county Kean person's phone number. When I called him, he told me I could drive down to County campaign office and pick up my sign (30 minutes away). When I told him that was not reasonable, he said he would drop a sign off. I never got my sign, but I still voted for Kean. Maybe the campaign should have been more professional and appreciative of those offering support.

While Republicans in New Jersey have failed to win statewide in recent years, I don't think it's fair to make Tom Wilson the scapegoat. He can only work with the cards he's dealt and as I said earlier, he needs better management around him.

I think the answer for Tom is to start brining youth to the State Committee. There is a lot of eager and ideolistic Republican youth in Hudson County and they need to be shown that they are being heard and that they matter to the party. I had the pleasure of meeting Fernando Uribe who currently chairs the Hudson County Young Republicans and he does a great job.

It has become abundantly clear that the NJGOP in its current state is a dinosaur. Until the party is revived, I don't think we'll ever really get a sense of what Tom Wilson REALLY brings to the table.

I'll give you my own piece of anecdotal evidence from over the summer when several friends were doing phone banking for Linda Stender in the 7th District. They got a lot of people saying they were "definitely" voting for Tom Kean Jr. but when it came to Ferguson, the reply was a little explosion of annoyance at the "Linda Stender is a Spender" TV and radio campaign that Ferguson was already running last summer. They were "definitely" voting for Stender.

I question whether anyone outside of his own family and friends voted "for" Mike Ferguson. Look back at those positive ads he ran, "Our children are our most important whatever," "Making a difference for children." I mean, thats mush. People are cynical about politicians showing you pictures of themselves with children. Doesn't everyone groan inside when they've got a cute little black child front and center? We're living in a state where DYFS (Department of Youth and Family Services) gives children to foster parents who feed them cardboard and we all know it and go about our lives. The politicians pat themselves on the back for getting some earmark at a hospital that they can use in their reelection ads.

Linda Stender is going to run again in 2008; the district is getting less Republican, obviously. This loss was by 1.70% and what was it last time, like 15 points? Maybe the Dems will do a little redistricting and lop off some of Hunterdon or Somerset and add a little Newark. They should; the Supreme Court says its OK to redistrict any time.

You wrote: “I question whether anyone outside of his own family and friends voted "for" Mike Ferguson.” You must have overlooked the Rutgers exit polling data that found “slightly more than 80 percent of those voting for Ferguson said they were voting for him, while 55 percent of those voting for Stender said they were voting for her”. We cited this information in our post and included a link.

Frankly, we don’t notice the skin color of children in ads, political or otherwise. We just see children. Why do you “groan inside when they've got a cute little black child front and center”? Obviously if a child is little they have to be placed in the front or no one would be able to see them. Do you believe black children shouldn’t be seen or included in ads?

You wrote: “We're living in a state where DYFS (Department of Youth and Family Services) gives children to foster parents who feed them cardboard and we all know it and go about our lives.” Just some anecdotal evidence we’ve come across, DYFS mismanagement is one of the reasons some people voted against Stender. DYFS is a state program. New Jersey’s state government is 100% controlled by Democrats – Governor, state senate and assembly. The taxpayers of New Jersey spend hundreds of millions each year to help these kids and expect the government to spend the money on the children, not on abusive foster parents, incompetent state workers and political cronies. Linda Stender is a member of the assembly and has been in a position to do something about the problem, apparently knowledgeable voters held her accountable.

You wrote, “Linda Stender is going to run again in 2008”. For that to happen doesn’t the “double-dipping pension padder” have to run for the Assembly again in 2007? Let’s see, DYFS as you point out is a disaster, Stem cell research was never funded, instead we saw hundreds of millions wasted on pork projects, property taxes will still be the highest in the nation and the state will still be bankrupt. What a wonderful record, Stender the tax and spender will have to offer voters in the 22nd LD.

You wrote: “Maybe the Dems will do a little redistricting and lop off some of Hunterdon or Somerset and add a little Newark. They should; the Supreme Court says its OK to redistrict any time.” Yea, it’s okay with the Supreme Court as long as it’s okay with a states’ constitution. It just so happens it’s not okay with New Jersey’s constitution – Article I, Section II. “After each federal census taken in a year ending in zero, the Congressional districts shall be established by the New Jersey Redistricting Commission.” And of course you do understand a “little redistricting” would change more than just the 7th.

America has finally begun her enlightenment!I must laugh at all of the «right-wing» pundits crawling over one another to give the latest theory on why the Republicans lost their majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives. They will offer reasons ranging from the unpopularity of G. W. Bush and his war on the Iraqi people to the preposterous concept that the Republicans weren't conservative enough!What they fail to see; indeed they likely fail to admit this to themselves, is incredibly obvious: America, while still lagging behind the rest of the world, is becoming more progressive. While this has been going on for some time, it is now bearing fruit.Republicans are being defeated at historic levels in all regions of the nation.While here in the Northeast or on the West Coast that has been the order for years, the Midwest and Mountain States are now following «the coasts» into the light. Soon, the Republican Party will be limited to such backward areas as the rural South; as the people of an area become more educated, they will eschew racism, abandon their warlike and xenophobic ways, and the Republican Party will wither for want of support.America will become less divided politically, and a new era of harmony will dawn in Washington!

In addition to all the other pertinent comments you have cited regarding JoanBasil's "wishes" for altering the 7th Congressional District, her comment that,

"Maybe the Dems will do a little redistricting and lop off some of Hunterdon or Somerset and add a little Newark,"

suffers from the additional technical shortcoming that no part of Newark is currently contiguous with the 7th Congressional District.

Sorry! No can do, Joannie!

Perhaps she could convince the next Redistricting Commission to include additional potentially Stender-leaning chunks of Linden or Union Township to the 7th, although in the past the courts have frowned on efforts to intentionally gerrymander a district in order to achieve a particular partisan result. Chris Jackman found that out in the 1980's. And she'll also have to convince the 13th member -- the one chosen jointly by both sides -- that there is no partisan motive involved.